RE: [dhcwg] additional comments on dhcpv6-24

["Bernie Volz (EUD)" <[e-mail]>]

Regarding (1), please watch the mailing list as Ralph Droms is issuing update notices for changes being made.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 12:52 PM
To: Bernie Volz (EUD)
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] additional comments on dhcpv6-24


>>>>> On Wed, 15 May 2002 14:36:37 -0500, 
>>>>> "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <[e-mail]> said:

> Regarding (1), based on -24 the server shouldn't be sending an
> Advertise. And, yes, I think your assumption that the client should
> discard it is correct. Having said that, I would like to see the
> Rapid Commit change to be more of just an option. A server set up to
> respond to Rapid Commit would send the Reply. Other servers could
> send an Advertise. The client would use the Reply if received;
> otherwise simply start using the Advertises as if a Solicit w/o
> Rapid Commit was done.

I'm a bit confused...so are you saying the followings?

- the client should discard the unexpected advertise *with the current
  specification*.
- but we should change the spec so that the client will accept an
  advertise.

> Regarding (2), good question ... I would say it should. The logic
> might simply be send a Solicit, wait IRT, check if any Advertises
> received ... if so, go use them otherwise send Solicit again.

Okay.  I don't have a particular opinion on this as long as the
wording is clear.

> Regarding (3), your understanding is correct. I can't see that it
> hurts for us to indicate that RAND be greater than 0.

Okay.  I would simplify the specification so that there will be no
special case, but I don't make an objection to the current spec.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[e-mail]